Court Dismisses Blackmail Charge Against Sandra Hill Due To Insufficient Evidence
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Sandra Hill, the publisher of Cayman Marl Road, was found not guilty today, April 7, 2026, of blackmail charge brought against her by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in connection with a long-running dispute involving businessman John Felder.
The case, which stemmed from an email sent during prior civil defamation proceedings between the parties, collapsed after Justice Peters ruled there was insufficient evidence for the matter to proceed to the jury for a full determination on the facts.
During the trial, Felder faced robust cross-examination by Hill’s defence counsel, King’s Counsel George Carter-Stephenson who was assisted by Stacy-Ann Kelly of Kelly Law. The cross-examination exposed significant weaknesses in Felder’s account, including inconsistencies in his evidence and aspects of his litigation history.
Notably, Felder stated under questioning that his previous law firm, Priestleys, had been negligent in handling matters related to the civil case. However, he said he entered into an agreement that he would not sue the law firm.
Felder also provided meandering explanations for his delay in reporting the alleged blackmail to police, linking it to disputes with his former lawyers and a change of heart over a consent order he had already agreed to in the defamation proceedings.
Carter-Stephenson further challenged the accuracy of the financial narrative presented by the prosecution, highlighting discrepancies in the damages figures from the underlying civil action (in which Felder had sued Hill and was ultimately ordered to pay her legal costs). Overall, witness testimony and evidence presented appeared fragmented, with elements that failed to build a coherent case of blackmail under the required legal threshold.
After legal arguments, Justice Peters directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict on both counts of the indictment (blackmail and obstructing the course of justice).
Justice Peters explained that while the DPP had properly brought the case and it had been prosecuted to a high standard by DPP Crown Counsel Mulgrew, the evidence available was simply insufficient to allow the case to advance further. Justice Peters emphasized that this outcome reflected no failing on the part of the prosecution team, who were “stuck with the evidence they have,” and praised both counsel for their assistance.
The foreman of the jury confirmed the directed not-guilty verdict without needing further deliberation.
This dismissal adds to a pattern of unsuccessful or challenged prosecutions brought by the DPP against Hill, who has previously described the proceedings as part of a broader pattern of victimization related to her media work.
Hill’s defence team, led by Carter Stephenson, indicated they will be seeking costs for the proceedings, including those incurred prior to legal aid being granted. Written submissions on the applicable legal provisions are expected shortly.
Justice Peters thanked the jurors for their service, and addressed minor administrative matters, including the court’s concerns over a Cayman News Service report that had its comments section open for public reaction during the ongoing trial.
Hill was discharged and is free to continue her work without the shadow of these charges. The outcome underscores the importance of robust evidence in criminal prosecutions, particularly in cases intertwined with prior civil disputes. It remains to be seen whether the DPP will continue to launch future cases like this against Hill without sufficient evidence and resulting in costs orders against the DPP.
